Pages

So, not only did the White House backpedal like a Detroit Tigers' outfielder trying to chase down a fly ball after they misled the nation when they said the Lincoln was too far away for a helicopter but now acknowledge they were 39 miles and well within range of ANY helicopter. Now we learn that the carrier could've gone home a day early from their 10-month tour instead of being held up for entire day waiting for the president to tell us something we already know which he could've said from the Oval Office. And I don't buy what the Admiral in the article said, either. They knew the ship was coming back for weeks and could've planned for a quick return. I seem to recall a lot of Republicans back in the day bitching that Clinton was misusing government property during his reelection campaign and bitching that Gore was doing the same in 2000. I don't see anything wrong with reasonably questioning the use of taxpayer funds by a President up for reelection in what is for all intents and purposes a campaign commercial.

"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie

"Butt hat is my opinion and we all know how far that goes around here." - Demonicmaster

So, not only did the White House backpedal like a Detroit Tigers'' outfielder trying to chase down a fly ball after they misled the nation when they said the Lincoln was too far away for a helicopter but now acknowledge they were 39 miles and well within range of ANY helicopter. Now we learn that the carrier could''ve gone home a day early from their 10-month tour instead of being held up for entire day waiting for the president to tell us something we already know which he could''ve said from the Oval Office. And I don''t buy what the Admiral in the article said, either. They knew the ship was coming back for weeks and could''ve planned for a quick return. I seem to recall a lot of Republicans back in the day bitching that Clinton was misusing government property during his reelection campaign and bitching that Gore was doing the same in 2000. I don''t see anything wrong with reasonably questioning the use of taxpayer funds by a President up for reelection in what is for all intents and purposes a campaign commercial.

Well, it prevents the countries receiving the advanced weaponry from setting up an industry on their own, that would be infinately more dangerous proliferation-wise.

Good point, whats better than being able to defeat an enemy? Having them depend on you for weapons. I hadnt really thought of it like that.

"But when the game, the second-person engine, starts again, it tells you about yourself ... like Scheherazade and her king mixed up together in one, trying over and over to tell yourself your own story, and get it right" - You by Austin Grossman

Other examples, China won''t field their brand-new 155mm artillery system (alledgedly better than the M109A6) because it relies too heavily on supra-national GPS satellites. The cannon might do very well on the export market but it appears that China waits on its own GPS system before fielding it theirselves.
Problem for them is that there is only a domestic incentive to build their own sattelites as the US, Russia and (very soon)Europe already offer satellite navigation and targeting so there won''t be any foreign investing in a Chinese system. When the US or Russia would have kept their satellites for their own use only there might had been wide support for an independant Chinese system. However, with GPS, Glonass and Galileo outbranding any new initiative already, the US, Europe and Russia are effectively controlling the very important global positioning and targetting market.
Remember that this stuff plays out like a good game of Civilization, you sell your tech to your friends and sometimes even to your enemies to gather around enough cash and be able to push the enveloppe every time. By doing this you always stay ahead two steps and finance innovation by selling 5~15 year old tech.
Maybe we will see wide-spread proliferation of the JSF in 10 years but will the US care? I think not, innovation will quickly render the plane obsolete and in another 15 years countries will stand in line to buy the next cutting-edge fighter/tank/frigate from the US or other western countries. Hell, when you eliminate all WMD in the world wars between non-western countries might even become lucrative for the west, they will have to rearm somewhere...

The most unstable plane is the swept forward wing X plane. Though I dont believe the F-117 is far behind. Also dont forget the X plane that is testing airframes sans tail.

Popular Science had a sweet X plane article a few years back. I wish I still had my copy. The XB-70 was such a kick ass looking retro plane! I love all the concept drawings of the short take-off and landing A-12 advanced fighter. Of course it was scrapped

Now that you mention it, have all the A-6 Intruders been scrapped? They did have some limelight in the first Gulf War. The A-10 got much more airplay of the veteran aircraft. I guess everything is F/A-18''s now. I didn''t even hear anything about Harrier 2''s.

Not that I don''t like the Hornets, but the Warthogs, Intruders, Harriers, Tomcats, etc have much more personality.

I will never get tired of Apaches. That is one intimidating beast! It will be a sad day when those are retired.